Talk:List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course

BRD

It is a requirement that any Wikipedia article satisfies the requirements of Independent notability WP:N. This list article or actually a collection of stacked mini articles that has not satisfied this requirement as required by Wikipedia. The creative issues in the selection of this list items has not been acknowledge with a citation(s) which is required by Wikipedia WP:CITE. The list article as a series of stacked articles as it duplicate pre-existing articles and Wikipedia does not allow the application of a “local consensus” for any reason. It is also a requirement of Wikipedia that each list item has a linked article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agljones (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Agljones, I am sorry that you perceive the list-article so negatively, but you are simply wrong on your general concerns about Wikipedia policies expressed above, in this first of four discussion sections just opened by you. "BRD" does not make sense as a discussion section title, as far as I can tell. There is nothing brought up about Wikipedia editing's wp:BRD process. Anyhow, I number the following items for easier reference.

• P1: This list-article does meet Wikipedia requirements of notability as was addressed in the AFD about this article which you opened but which closed "Keep".
• P2: The material in the article is not required to cite with footnotes any other Wikipedia articles, when any material was adapted or copied from the linked individual corner articles. wp:CITE is about how Wikipedia as a whole must cite other sources. Wikipedia is not required to cite Wikipedia articles. In fact citing other Wikipedia articles as sources is not allowed; any such citations will be deleted quickly by other editors. It cannot be plagiarism or copyright violation for one Wikipedia article to adapt/copy material from another Wikipedia article: both are written by the collective of Wikipedia editors. In an edit where material is adapted or copied, it is courteous to acknowledge that in the edit's edit summary, which I believe was done in all or almost all instances with the creation of this list-article.
• P3: The material in any list-item is not required to cite the external sources in the separate article which it summarizes, unless there is a controversial assertion. A reader can be expected to go to the linked separate article to get more detailed information, including about sources. (Where in policy, exactly, do you feel this is contradicted?)
• P4: There is no policy problem with having a list-article that summarizes many shorter articles. Your complaint about it being a "stack" is without any grounds in policy. (Where in policy, exactly, do you feel this is contradicted?) Somewhere below you cite wp:NOTMIRROR. That policy specifically allows for list articles. Guidelines for list-articles specifically allow sortable lists (tables); see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#General format of list articles.
• P5: For some rows in the table, the table row content may be almost as long as the corner article which it summarizes. If that is the case, then probably the corner article should be removed from Wikipedia by redirecting it to the table row. Perhaps your article-specific complaints below might indicate some cases where such a redirect is appropriate?
• P6: It is absolutely, completely wrong that each list item in a list-article is required to link to a separate article on the topic. It is too bad that you have such a basic misunderstanding. Red-link items and non-notable items (black-ink) are allowed. See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#General formats of list articles, which specifically describes "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" as a common type of list-article, and gives an example list which includes 2 items that are deemed non-notable. This list-article can be regarded as that type, if shortness is a matter of perspective and if one regards this list as intended to be complete according to a customized inclusion standard for list-items, which is allowed. The customized inclusion standard here is, roughly: salient enough in media coverage to seem important to editors here. Or, this list-article can be regarded as another common type (longer, having redlinks and blacklinks, and incomplete), with which I and many other Wikipedia editors are familiar.
• P7: Sure, a wp:LOCALCONSENSUS does not override general Wikipedia policy. I am not aware of any aspect of this article supported by merely a local consensus in contradiction of general policy.

I believe many of your misunderstandings have been addressed previously in archived discussions on this Talk page and elsewhere. IMHO, your long passages of complaint reflect and mix up multiple misunderstandings you have, and it is unwieldy to reply to them all, again and again. Also your litany in four discussion sections opened just now is too long for your own good, if your wish is to achieve real communication and obtain agreement of other Wikipedia editors. "wp:TLDR" is a reasonable reaction. IMHO, you would do better to express one extremely narrow complaint at a time at this talk page and allow for discussion of that to a conclusion (i.e. seriously, do not open another discussion section until you yourself agree that the topic is settled, either by your explicitly accepting a consensus view or your agreeing to disagree). However, there may be merit in some of your more specific comments in discussion sections below and I will try to look past the general misunderstandings to detect where you do hit on something that seems reasonable to me. Other editors are welcome to try to decipher out any valid issues, too.

But if you dislike this list-article so much, perhaps you should just ignore it. I honestly wonder if your litany here is intended to put you on the record as an opponent, and nothing more. If so, then perhaps we should just agree that yes, you do not like this, and no further discussion is needed. --doncram 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Row Union Mills - added image

For the avoidance of doubt, this is the camera location of the image. Hit the 'zoom' button twice and the banking where the spectators gather can (almost) be seen at the side of the pub in the shade. The bike's position is, I think, here. Semperito (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160615005526/http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/motorcycling/tt-2016-dunlop-wins-cracking-senior-tt-1-7958939 to http://www.iomtoday.co.im/sport/motorcycling/tt-2016-dunlop-wins-cracking-senior-tt-1-7958939
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614134345/https://www.gov.im/media/1347526/tt2015-road-closure-notice.pdf to https://www.gov.im/media/1347526/tt2015-road-closure-notice.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)